lacewing-digital-library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

edoc_search

Search authorized LDL EDoc PDFs for requested terms and return short page snippets around each match. Use an EDoc ID and term list to locate relevant passages securely.

Instructions

Search an authorized LDL EDoc PDF and return short page snippets around requested terms; credentials are read only from secure local configuration.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "edoc_id": "<edoc_id>",
      "terms": "<terms>"
    },
    "name": "edoc_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`terms`	Yes
`edoc_id`	Yes
`max_hits`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth model ('credentials are read only from secure local configuration') and the return style (short snippets), but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what authorization 'authorized' entails, rate limits, or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-joined credential clause is slightly run-on but still earns its place by conveying auth behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage routing, the description leaves too much unstated. The output schema covers return shape, but parameter meaning, authorization requirements, and alternative routing remain gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely implies 'terms' and 'edoc_id' (the authorized PDF), but never defines term matching semantics, and completely omits 'max_hits' (default 20) despite it directly affecting output volume.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (an authorized LDL EDoc PDF) plus the return shape (short page snippets around requested terms). This clearly separates it from the taxonomy-oriented siblings like resolve_taxon or name_history, though it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied 'search a document' framing. There is no indication of when to prefer this over siblings such as raw_public_endpoint or bibliography, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.